DIISAS
STE
ER RISK
R K
R DUC
RED
CTIO
ON
EARL
E
LY CHIL
C LDH
HOO
OD
DE
EVELOP
PME
ENT
UNICEFF REEGIONAL OFFFICE FOR CEENTRAL AND
D EASTERN EUROPE AND
D THE COMM
MONWEALTH
H OF INDEPENDENT STATTES G
GENEVA 201
11 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
&
EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
a special focus on the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus
UNICEF Regional Office
Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States
GENEVA
2011
UNICEF
2011
Cover Photo: UNICEF/John McConnico/2011
For information, please contact:
Deepa Grover Regional Adviser ‐ Early Childhood Development UNICEF Regional Office Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS) [email protected] The opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of the United Nations Children’s Fund. The designations employed and the presentation of the material (including maps) do not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities or the delimitations of its frontiers. PREFACE
Chances are that if you were to ask a disaster risk reduction expert about early childhood development
you would be met with a quizzical expression. It would be the same, if you were to mention disaster risk
reduction to an early childhood development specialist. And yet, young children in the age group birth
to eight years, are the ones who are likely to suffer the most from the effects of disasters because of their
unique vulnerabilities and their physical and psychological dependence on their caregivers. In the last
four or five years, strategies and actions for disaster risk reduction have been evolving and becoming
more refined. A great deal of emphasis has been laid on ensuring that schools are built to standard in
order to withstand the effects of natural calamities. Simultaneously, priority has been given to equipping
school children and their teachers with the necessary information and skills to shield themselves from the
consequences of sudden onset natural hazards. Similarly, adults and young people in communities have
participated in preparedness training to limit damage and save lives. But on the subject of young
children the disaster risk reduction discourse has been almost completely silent. This silence possibly
emanates from the assumption that disaster risk reduction interventions targeting adults and communities
are sufficient in and of themselves and that positive effects will automatically trickle down to young
children. This assumption is erroneous.
Early childhood is a period of very rapid growth and development and early childhood development
encompasses at least three distinct stages – infancy and toddlerhood (birth to 3 years), the preschool
years (3 to 6 years) and the transition to school (6 to 8 years). During early childhood, the young child
progresses from complete dependency to relative autonomy. This paper presents a preliminary effort to
marry early childhood development and disaster risk reduction. It argues that not only do young children
deserve a special focus within disaster risk reduction thinking and interventions but also that appropriate
measures should reach children directly and indirectly (through their caregivers and service providers) in
accordance with their unfolding capacities. The paper presents compelling arguments for why early
childhood development should be incorporated into disaster risk reduction and equally compelling ones
to support the incorporation of disaster risk reduction in early childhood development programming.
The impetus to develop this paper came from the recently received DIPECHO VI grant to countries in
the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The author makes several strategic recommendations to enable
grant implementers to address young children’s risk reduction meaningfully.
i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was written by Dr. Hoa Phuong Tran who has several years of experience in early childhood
development, emergency preparedness and response and more recently disaster risk reduction. She
approached the task of dovetailing disaster risk reduction and early childhood development both
thoughtfully and creatively. The paper was considerably enriched by comments and inputs provided by
Anna Smeby, Arnaud Conchon, Asim Rehman, Erin Tanner, Frederick Spielberg, Lauren Barredo,
Saltanat Builasheva, and Vidur Chopra. The paper was edited by Dr. Deepa Grover, Regional Adviser,
Early Childhood Development, UNICEF, RO CEECIS.
ii ACRONYMS
CCC
CBO
CEECIS
CGECCD
DIPECHO
DRR
ECD
ECHO
EPRP
ESARO
HFA
MDG
MTSP
IDNDR
ISDR
NGO
SWAP
TACRO
UNDAF
UNDP
UNESCO
UNICEF
UNISDR
WASH
Core Commitments for Children
Community-based organisation
Central and Eastern Europe/the Commonwealth of Independent States
Consultative Group on Early Childcare and Development
European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Department Disaster Preparedness
Programme
Disaster risk reduction
Early childhood development
European Commission Humanitarian Aid
Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan
East and South Africa Regional Office (UNICEF)
Hyogo Framework for Action
Millennium Development Goals
Medium-term Strategic Plan
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Non-governmental organisation
Sector-wide approach
The American and Caribbean Regional Office (UNICEF)
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United Nations Children’s Fund
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
II.
CONTEXT
Disaster risk reduction – an emerging global priority
Early childhood development – a right and a development priority
1
LANDSCAPE OF UNICEF’S WORK IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN
CENTRAL ASIA AND SOUTH CAUCASUS
4
UNICEF’s commitment to early childhood development
UNICEF’s work in early childhood development in Central Asia and South Caucasus
UNICEF’s commitment to disaster risk reduction
UNICEF’s work in disaster risk reduction in Central Asia and South Caucasus
III.
YOUNG CHILDREN - A MISSING LINK IN DISASTER
RISK REDUCTION
Defining “vulnerability” and “capacity” in young children
IV.
5
PROMOTING EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT7
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
Young children are a disaster’s first victims
Young children are resilient, and effective agents of change
The combined potential social and economic benefits of ECD-DRR integration
ECD programmes provide a strong institutional basis for the sustainability of
disaster risk reduction
Early childhood development – a timely thrust for community-based risk reduction
Commonality of ECD and disaster risk reduction
V.
INCORPORATING DRR IN ECD PROGRAMMES AND STRATEGY
11
Integrating disaster risk reduction in sectoral policies is a priority under
the Hyogo Framework for Action
Synergy of community-based ECD and community-based disaster risk reduction
Disaster risk reduction protects the investment of ECD Programmes
VI.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DOVETAILING ECD & DRR IN
CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
12
Areas where dovetailing of ECD and DRR can take place
Institutional services
Physical structures
Home-based and non-formal community-based childcare
Advocacy
iv VII.
VIII.
MAINSTREAMING ECD IN DRR IN CENTRAL ASIA AND
SOUTH CAUCASUS: A PROPOSED UNICEF POSITION
15
STRATEGIC PROGRAMME GUIDANCE FOR THE PROMOTION OF ECD
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF DRR
Conceptual framework for mainstreaming ECD in disaster risk reduction
Quick wins
New, low-input activities
Activities for longer-term impact
17
CONCLUDING REMARKS
24
REFERENCES
25
ANNEXES
28
1.
2.
Strategic Recommendations for the Implementation of ECD Activities
Identified in the DIPECHO VI Project for Central Asia and the South Caucasus
Risks Children Face in a Disaster and the Consequences
BOXES
1.
2.
Natural Hazards in CEECIS
Some good examples of disaster risk reduction for young children
TABLE
1.
Conceptual Framework for Mainstreaming Early Childhood in Disaster Risk Reduction
v DISASTER RISK REDUCTION & EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
A focus on the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus
Disasters have persistent, long-term negative impacts on human development. At a stroke, they
can destroy lives and livelihoods, undoing the progress made over years of development efforts.
When disaster strikes, young children are hardest hit and bear a disproportionate share of its
effects. In the coming decade, an estimated 175 million children will be affected by disasters
every year.1
This paper is a preliminary attempt to explore how the critical concern for disaster risk
reduction (DRR) can be integrated into early childhood development (ECD) programming. It
seeks to examine how those who care for young children, those who provide services and
support to young children and their families, as well as young children themselves can
participate effectively in mitigating the effects of disasters on survival, growth and development
in the early years.
The paper is presented in eight sections and starts with a brief general discussion of relevant
DRR and ECD issues (Section I). This discussion is followed by an overview of the actions
undertaken so far by UNICEF in these two areas, through its regular country programmes or
pilot initiatives in partnership with other agencies (Section II). The paper then proceeds to
discuss integrating ECD perspectives in the DRR discourse (Section III and IV). Given the
close linkages between ECD and DRR and the benefits which ECD programmes can derive
from including DRR aspects, the paper argues for integrating DRR into ECD programmes and
strategies (Section V). While some of the arguments advanced in the paper may be placed in
either section IV or V, they have been positioned as such in this paper to address two distinct
audiences – those who work in ECD and those who work in emergency preparedness and DRR.
The arguments for dovetailing ECD and DRR are followed by a discussion of opportunities that
exist in Central Asia and South Caucasus (Section VI) that could enable such a convergence.
The position of UNICEF Regional Office for CEECIS on bringing together ECD and DRR is
laid out in Section VII, followed by strategic programme guidance for promoting DRR within
the purview of ECD and vice versa (Section VIII).
A number of strategic recommendations with respect to ECD within the implementation of the
DIPECHO VI project2 are suggested in Annex 1. (For DIPECHO and DRR see Annex 2.)
1 I.
CONTEXT
Disasters are a humanitarian and a development concern. They are increasing in both frequency
and intensity. Their impact is a function of their intensity and duration, and people’s
vulnerability and resilience. However, disasters can be mitigated and their impact minimised if
people take steps to reduce risks. Disaster risk reduction is a “systematic approach to
identifying, assessing and reducing those risks”.3 By linking DRR to initiatives that support
ECD, the risks for young children can be reduced significantly.
Although there are several categories of disaster risks such as industrial accidents, technological
hazards and epidemics, this paper will be restricted to natural hazards – geophysical,
atmospheric or hydrological events such as earthquakes, landslides, floods or drought, tsunami
and windstorms. Poverty significantly exacerbates the impact of hazards, at both human and
economic levels. Inappropriate land-use, weak institutional structures and low resilience of
people living in poverty contribute to a country’s limited capacity to mitigate the impact of
catastrophes.
Countries in Central Asia and South Caucasus are exposed to most major disaster risks,
particularly earthquakes, droughts, floods and landslides. In the last fifty years no country in the
region has been spared the devastating effects of one disaster or another on a massive scale. In
Central Asia and Caucasus, the reported 177 disasters since 1988 have caused more than 36,000
deaths.4 Earthquakes, the most dominant risk in the region, caused the maximum number of
fatalities – over 32,000. The institutional disaster management mechanisms in place in the
region have not been entirely effective in minimising the impact of disasters, as relatively less
attention has been paid to risk reduction than to emergency response.
Disaster risk reduction – an emerging global priority: Concerns with risk reduction date back
to the 1990s when the UN declared the first International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
(IDNDR). In 2005, 168 countries adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)5 with the
overarching goal to build the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. The
international community recognises that global disaster risks are concentrated in economically
poorer countries with weaker governance. As for low-middle income countries with rapid
economic growth, the exposure of people and assets to natural hazards is growing at a faster rate
than risk-reducing capacities are being strengthened, leading to increased risk in these countries
also.6
Disaster risk reduction is now recognised as fundamental to development. There has been a
notable increase in political will in the last few years of governments as well as civil society to
address disaster risks, as seen in the creation and functioning of an estimated 56 national
platforms for DRR, as well as NGO DRR networks7. The World Bank, UN agencies and a
number of NGOs have promulgated their DRR policies and strategies and increased their
capacity in this area. The World Disaster Reduction Campaign (2006-2007) spearheaded by the
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) under the theme Disaster Risk
2 Box 1
Natural Hazards in CEECIS
The CEECIS region is prone to natural hazards, especially earthquakes, floods, avalanches, mudslides,
drought and forest fires, all of which are impacting livelihoods and social infrastructure, especially in crowded
urban areas. Particularly vulnerable are Central Asia, the South Caucasus and Turkey, which lie in wellknown seismic zones and thus are susceptible to major earthquakes.
In countries such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, an earth tremor or quake could cause dislocation
and displacement of uranium wastes stored underground, thereby posing a serious health risk to the people
living in those areas. The recent global economic crisis is increasing poverty and reducing access to social
services, especially among vulnerable women and children in many transitional states in the region. In early
2009, Kyrgyzstan suffered an earthquake, which resulted in deaths and destroyed schools, hospitals, roads
and other critical infrastructure. In Tajikistan, flooding and mudflows from the seasonal rains in April and May
affected 25 districts in the country, while drought affected areas of Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Such
events are predicted to increase in frequency as the pace of climate change accelerates.
Reduction Begins at School inspired a movement to take initiatives worldwide to make schools
safer.
Early Childhood Development - a right and a development priority: The right of children to
survival, growth, development, protection and participation is enshrined in the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child. Early childhood, from conception through age 8, is the critical stage
when children develop an array of cognitive, physical, social and emotional skills. The
extensive brain development that occurs during the first years of life is susceptible to
environmental influences and impacts performance and achievement in schooling. Children’s
early experiences can either augment or inhibit their overall development, depending on access
to and the quality of basic services, nutrition and health care, family and community care
practices, learning opportunities, and protection from risk.8
In Central Asia and South Caucasus, despite overall economic growth, there are still high levels
of child poverty and significant disparities in access to social services. The significance of ECD
and school readiness continues to be largely overlooked, especially for the most marginalised
groups. Enrolment in early childhood education programmes has fallen to an alarming level,
especially in rural areas and poor households. Only 10 percent of children aged 3-5 years attend
such programmes in Tajikistan and Azerbaijan,9 19 % in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, 10 20% in
Uzbekistan and Armenia, and 43% in Georgia.11
In recent years, the rights and vulnerabilities of young children in emergency situations have
gained attention thanks to the advocacy of ECD specialists and practitioners. Guidelines and
programmes have been developed accordingly. Similar efforts are yet to be made in DRR to
minimise young children’s risk exposure and improve their preparedness. This paper notes that
discussions and action plans to integrate DRR into existing development programmes and
3 humanitarian support have not explicitly recognised the most vulnerable group –children under
eight years old.
II.
LANDSCAPE OF UNICEF’S WORK IN CENTRAL ASIA AND SOUTH
CAUCASUS IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
UNICEF’s commitment to ECD: UNICEF has been supporting ECD in the countries around
the world for decades. Underpinned by the unique rights of young children, UNICEF’s work in
ECD is conducted in partnership with national governments and civil society and covers a wide
range of interventions addressing children’s survival, development, protection and participation.
Efforts to promote the rights of young children are grounded in scientific knowledge of
children’s physical, cognitive, social and emotional development as well as evidence from fields
as diverse as neurosciences and economics. In order to ensure that young children’s rights are
addressed holistically, UNICEF endeavours to mainstream ECD principles in health, nutrition,
education, child protection, WASH and emergency preparedness and response.12 As part of
emergency response UNICEF has been taking action to meet the specific needs of young
children through providing appropriate care and support, promoting children’s involvement in
their own recovery and enabling them to develop their potential.
UNICEF’s work in ECD in Central Asia and South Caucasus: UNICEF has been working
with national governments to support early childhood care and development in the region since
1994 when the process of transition from a centrally-planned to a market-oriented economy
started. In the last decade, programmes for young children have taken on a more defined form
and cover a wide spectrum of interventions and initiatives. On the one hand is parenting
education and support, delivered by a variety of agents and/or through different media and
channels, which aims to help families to improve their child care and rearing practices, create an
enriching learning environment and engage in positive interaction with young children. On the
other, UNICEF works with national governments to improve the provision of quality early
learning opportunities for children in the preschool age group. Committed to supporting the
most vulnerable, UNICEF promotes community-based and home-based interventions to reach
out to those who are not enrolled in state kindergartens or preschools and advocates vigorously
for public provision. Recognising the crucial importance of school readiness in bolstering
children’s participation and achievement in basic education school learning achievement,
UNICEF promotes the provision of one to two years of structured learning prior to children’s
school entry, especially for the most marginalized.
As countries in Central Asia and South Caucasus are highly disaster-prone, UNICEF has also
enhanced its support for ECD in emergencies. There is a recognition of the need to expand
emergency planning and response for young children beyond a focus on basic survival.
UNICEF has supported training of ECD professionals and volunteers on psychosocial support
and positive interaction with young children in emergencies. Of late UNICEF together with the
International Step by Step Association (ISSA) has compiled and made publicly available data
4 bases on human, technical and institutional resources in ECD and education in the CEECIS
region. Each entry has information on the resource’s functional competencies in the areas of
emergency preparedness and response.
UNICEF’s commitment to disaster risk reduction: UNICEF’s engagement in disaster
reduction started in the 1990s with its support for the IDNDR and subsequently its commitment
to HFA and active involvement in the ISDR system. Within its emergency support programmes,
DRR forms a cross-cutting component of the recently revised UNICEF Core Commitments to
Children in Emergencies, spanning preparedness to response and early recovery. Strategic
planning discussions have taken place at both headquarters and field levels to integrate DRR
into UNICEF’s education programmes. DRR programmes, largely education-focused, have
been developed at the regional level in CEECIS, ESARO and TACRO. Steps have been taken
to integrate risk reduction into UNICEF’s Child Friendly Schools and Life Skill Based
Education programmes. In Central Asian and South Caucasus countries, initiatives are under
way to promote the building of safe schools, develop emergency preparedness plans and
incorporate DRR in school curricula.
UNICEF’s work in disaster risk reduction in Central Asia and South Caucasus: UNICEF’s
involvement in DRR in the region is relatively recent. UNICEF supports DRR-related initiatives
of government and in collaboration with other UN agencies, such as UNISDR and UNDP. It has
developed strategic partnerships with a number of regional partners, the Netherlands Red
Cross/IFRC Central Asia, and the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies
(INEE).13 Since 2008 with the funding from European Union, UNICEF has worked with
national partners to strengthen the capacity of the education sector and emergency sections for
disaster prevention and management and, in the most vulnerable regions, to increase teachers
and school children’s knowledge on DRR.14
Under the DIPECHO V project,15 child-friendly and age-specific booklets, CDs and DVDs for
primary and older schoolchildren, in grades 4-5 and 6-11, were produced and guidelines for
teachers on providing training on DRR to schoolchildren developed. Board games were adapted
to country situations and produced in local languages. Simulation exercises were conducted in
pilot schools. Overall, the project reached thousands of teachers and schoolchildren, enabling
them to acquire knowledge and skills on disaster management. In addition, School Emergency
Plans were developed and adapted based on experience gained from the disaster simulation
exercises (e.g. earthquake and fire). In a restricted pilot undertaking, mothers and interested
adolescent as volunteers were trained in preparing and facilitating activities to enhance positive
interactions with children under six years old.
III.
YOUNG CHILDREN - A MISSING LINK IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
In general, young children are conspicuous in DRR by their absence. Most DRR programmes
have so far been largely focused on students at the secondary and high school level and more
5 recently, on the upper grades of primary school. The critical linkage between DRR and ECD
has not as yet been widely established or understood and therefore remains invisible.
That young children remain a missing link in DRR is due to a number of factors. There is
evidently an insufficient understanding of the different age groups that constitute early
childhood as well as young children’s vulnerability and capacities in the face of disaster. All
young children tend to be viewed as the extension and responsibility of families, and not a
distinct group of the population. It is often assumed, wrongly, that DRR interventions targeting
adults and communities are sufficient in and of themselves and that positive effects will
automatically trickle down to young children.
The assumption that only children in their middle childhood years are able to understand risks
and take action to reduce them continues to be widespread. As individuals and as a specific
group, young children are seen as incapable of understanding and preparing for hazards. The
view that all young children are dependent and have limited capacity has encouraged a
perception of children’s helplessness. They are consequently treated as passive victims, as
opposed to competent survivors.16 The little attention given to young children in DRR implies
that the scientific evidence from ECD has not been adequately communicated or understood
within DRR circles.
It is important to point out that children in the ECD age group, birth to 8 years, do not belong to
a homogeneous group. Their physical, socio-emotional and cognitive maturity and needs vary
considerably according to their stage of development. During the infancy and toddlerhood
stage, birth to 3 years, children are almost completely dependent on their caregivers – for health
care, nutrition, social and emotional nurturing, and cognitive and language development.
Interaction with mothers, other caregivers and family members is their only channel through
which to acquire skills and learn about the world around them. Their caregivers in turn need to
be supported by the community and basic service providers. From about three up to six years
old - the pre-school stage - socialisation and preparation for schooling take on greater
importance and the child’s circle of peers and adults widens, especially if they begin to
participate in preschool education. As children’s dexterity and self-help skills improve, they
become more independent and more aware of themselves as individuals. With increasing
experience, children’s analytic powers grow too. They seek information and new experiences.
During the period from age 6 to 8 children transition into school and the world at large.17 They
come to master more and more complex levels of thinking, feeling and interacting with people
and objects in the environment. As they learn new skills and concepts they become more
confident to take part in activities in school and at home.
The progression of children along this development continuum can provide useful insights for
DRR experts: young children can participate in DRR according to their unfolding capacities and
DRR activities need to be designed based on their levels of capacity. As Boyden and Mann
maintain, children possess inner resources which when combined with positive interpersonal
relationships help to increase their resilience.18 In Vygotskyian theory, children are active
agents in their own environment, and at the same time interpersonal relations, goal-directed
behaviour and shared understandings positively influence a child’s development.19
6 Another factor behind the omission of young children in the DRR discourse to date may be due
to the insufficient awareness of existing research on how young children are affected by
disaster, or their particular needs and their perspective on disaster.20 The psychosocial and
cognitive implications for young children suffering the impact of devastation may be
particularly serious and long lasting.21
Defining “vulnerability” and “capacity” of young children: Young children’s higher
vulnerability to disaster risk is a combination of their exposure to risk and their susceptibility to
harm. Their exposure is conditioned by where and how young children live in relation to a
hazard. The susceptibility of under-8 year old children to disaster-related harm is much higher
than for adults and older children. It is influenced not only by their socio-emotional, physical
and cognitive development but also by their families’ vulnerability. Children’s vulnerability is
directly influenced by availability of family connections, food, shelter, and security. It is also
increased dramatically by their own psychological stress, their caregivers’ stress, and the
disruption of care and interaction with carers and other children. The toxic stress caused by
extreme, prolonged adversity in the absence of a supportive network of adults, or being in
contact with deeply stressed or incapacitated caregivers, can damage the architecture of the
infant’s developing brain, leading to disrupted circuits and a weakened foundation for future
learning and health. Young children who experience toxic stress have a greater likelihood of
anti-social behaviour, lower achievement in school and at work, and poor physical and mental
health – all of which society then has to address at great cost.22 As in the case of adults,
children’s vulnerability can be reduced by measures to address the underlying causes. Those
measures include early warning and preparedness, risk identification and mitigation in addition
to the provision of quality basic social services. Children’s vulnerability can be alleviated if
there are uninterrupted opportunities for interaction with caregivers – who in turn receive the
necessary support from other adults - and older children, for playing and learning during and
after disaster.
Despite their vulnerability, young children do have the capacity to anticipate, cope with and
recover from hazard impacts. Their capacity grows with age and developmental maturity.
Children’s resilience increases with their understanding about risks in the surrounding
environment and knowledge of what to do when a disaster strikes. Data from the International
Resilience Research Project conducted with children of specific age groups (0-3, 4-8 and 9-11)
in 22 countries demonstrate that, by the age of 9 years, children can promote their own
resilience at the same rate as adults and while cultural differences exist these do not prevent the
promotion of resilience.23
IV.
PROMOTING EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children, without discrimination,
have the right to live, grow, develop and participate in a secure and decent environment. Thus,
from a rights perspective it is critical that DRR programmes bring into focus the needs and
7 realities of young children through providing support to their families and through educating
children them from an early age about DRR and disaster preparedness. Arguments for
promoting ECD within the purview of DRR are presented in the following.
Young children are a disaster’s first victims: When a disaster strikes young children are the
most vulnerable. The collapse or disruption of the basic protective systems that support
resilience put children at risk and weaken their coping mechanisms. Disasters have long term
detrimental consequences on young children that may not be reversible (See Annex 2 for more
details on risks facing young children).
Disaster risk reduction action requires governments and civil society to partner with the most
vulnerable people to prevent and be prepared for disasters as well as mitigate their impact.24
DRR initiatives therefore need to be designed in line with the specific needs of the most
vulnerable segment of the population - young children - and tailored according to their age and
development level.
Young children are resilient and effective agents of change: Children from about the age of
three can play a key role in building their own resilience and that of their peers.25 Children’s
resilience to disasters can be fostered if they are properly prepared for hazard risks and, based
on their capacity, are encouraged to take steps to mitigate risks.26 The ability to think critically
can enhance young children’s coping capacity. When given the opportunity children are
interested and engaged in solving their own problems with others.27
It is common practice for parents to explain to even very young children the risks around them sharp objects, stairs, the stove, the well, electricity sockets and so on. Children quickly adopt
certain behaviours to deal with risks. The same behaviour can be inculcated with regard to
large-scale hazards like earthquakes, floods, fire and other natural hazards. Disaster risk
reduction can provide young children with a platform where they are actively engaged in
addressing the major concerns in their environment and involve other children in it. Box 2
provides some examples of successful DRR initiatives targeting children under the age of 8.
While successful, such initiatives are few and only involve children enrolled in structured
programmes. DRR activities conducted by parents and adolescents for young children are still
sorely missing.
8 Box 2
Some good examples of disaster risk reduction for young children
Incorporating disaster risk reduction into the curriculum: American Red Cross, working with ISDR and UNESCO,
developed a curriculum called “Masters of Disasters”. It helps teachers integrate DRR education into core subjects for
children from age 5 to 14 and their families with disaster preparedness information, and to promote behaviour change by
providing them with the knowledge, skills and tools to effectively prepare for disasters. The programme which reached over
5.2 million children in six years is now formally incorporated into the national curriculum. Its success is due to being:
1. Interactive: children are engaged in the lessons and learn by having fun, not out of fear
2. Standardised: Attention is paid to quality control and to alignment with national education standards
3. Adaptable: certain aspects of the curriculum can be adapted to be locally relevant
4. Participatory: a broad spectrum of interest groups contributed to the initiative, adding their expertise and experience
Integrating DRR into existing early childhood programmes: Plan International has introduced DRR as part of its
ECD programmes in the Philippines. Children under 8 years of age learn about natural hazards, mitigation and
preparedness through drama and focus group discussions. They take part in risk assessment exercises based on their
evolving capacities. In disaster-exposed areas, ECD centres participate in safe school campaigns and children under 6
years old engage in psycho-social coping exercises through games.
Including young children in the wider community sensitisation drive on risk awareness: In the flood and
earthquake prone region of Bukhara (Uzbekistan) the regional Department of Emergencies in the effort to increase disaster
preparedness for the communities have included preschool and school children. The key activity is to train preschool
children and teachers in the appropriate actions to take before, during and after emergency situations. Through participating
in contests young children have shown their keen interest in learning about risks in their area. They are stimulated by the
activities and exercises, and improve their disaster preparedness. Although the risk reduction work is limited to information
activities, it has succeeded in attracting the attention of children at schools and kindergartens to the need for preparedness
at home and at school for emergency situations.
The combined potential social and economic benefits of DRR/ECD integration: When DRR
programmes start with, and target young children, they bring considerable social gains. The
knowledge and skills children acquire and the actions they take at a young age are likely to be
sustained through their lives and will be transferred to the next generation. When young
children are well prepared for risks and take action to be safe, the pressure that would normally
fall on their parents and caregivers is reduced, thus enabling the latter to focus on recovery
efforts of the family and community. Children can also be influential advocates by spreading
safety messages to their siblings and parents, and motivating families to take risk reduction and
emergency planning measures.
There are economic arguments for integrating ECD with DRR too. First, the cost effectiveness
of DRR has been demonstrated in various studies. The World Bank and the US Geological
Survey estimate that an investment of $40 billion would have prevented a global loss of $280
billion in the 1990s.28 A Red Cross study in Nepal on DRR shows that DRR initiatives yielded a
cost-benefit ratio of 15:1 in averted costs.29
9 The economic benefits of ECD have also been demonstrated.
The results of the High Scope project showed that $1
invested in quality preschool had resulted in a return of $7
when the child reached age 27; by the age 40, the return had
increased to $17.30 The benefit of investment in the early
years can also be seen through the adverse impact of the
absence of ECD investment on national development. The
Lancet series on children under 5 not developing their
potential estimated the economic cost to society as an average
income loss of over 20% per year.
Research has not been carried out as yet on the economics of
ECD-DRR integration, since the concept of linking ECD and
DRR is only now emerging. It is reasonable to expect
compounded benefits when activities in both ECD and DRR
dovetail.
On investing in early childhood...
“On a purely economic basis, it
makes a lot of sense to invest in the
young…Early learning begets later
learning and early success breeds
later success.... It is a rare public
policy initiative that promotes
fairness and social justice and at
the
same
time
promotes
productivity in the economy and in
society at large. Investing in
disadvantaged young children is
such a policy.”
James Heckman
Nobel Prize Winning Economist
ECD programmes provide a strong institutional basis for the sustainability of disaster risk
reduction: When DRR actions are conducted in ECD centres, preschools, home-based ECD
initiatives and reach out to caregivers for infants and toddlers, the government builds local
capacity to minimise disaster risks. DRR content can be woven into several aspects of an ECD
programme: Training of health professionals and caregivers for very young children (under
three years), sensitisation of parents and volunteer carers on childcare practices, promotion of
children’s positive interactions with carers and other children, early learning and ensuring the
safety of physical structures are some of the examples. ECD can give a concrete programmatic
focus to DRR and, through the local ECD centres, provides the kind of institutional basis to
ensure sustainability of DRR initiatives.
Early childhood development - a timely thrust for community-based risk reduction: Riskprone countries worldwide are giving high priority to DRR and to moving ahead quickly in the
design and adoption of policies to address risks.31 Emphasis is being placed on action within the
community, an area where much more needs to be done.
By accounting for young children’s vulnerability as well as their capacity as agents of change,
DRR programmes can effectively build community resilience. In recent years education has
gained prominence as a vital cross-cutting factor in the promotion of DRR. Yet, children start
learning and understanding about their environment well before they reach school-age. It is only
logical that DRR needs to start with young children and that ECD principles should be woven
into risk reduction activities.
UNICEF’s strategy to expand support for community-based ECD programmes resonates well
with the global call for more and better-designed DRR programmes at the community level.32
The emphasis on community-based programmes in both DRR and ECD presents an excellent
opportunity for DRR to be young child-focused and effective.
10 Commonality of ECD and disaster risk reduction: ECD programmes enable children to thrive
in a supportive environment and be ready for school and a productive and fulfilling life. They
enable children to gradually develop problem-solving skills, self-confidence and the capacity to
cooperate with others. Early childhood programmes in effect address the underlying factors of
resilience. In policy terms ECD helps reduce disaster risks. As for DRR, it also seeks to reduce
vulnerability, strengthen capacity to solve problems and enhance cooperation, needed for
preparing for and coping with disasters.
Early childhood development and DRR programmes thus share more common aims than has
been recognised hitherto. This common thread of ECD and DRR points to the gains to be had
from incorporating early childhood principles in DRR. Child-focused DRR brings about a
synergy of effort and results in both areas, helping to protect the rights of young children.33
V.
INCORPORATING DRR IN ECD PROGRAMMES AND STRATEGY
Section IV argues that DRR programmes must include early childhood principles if they are to
be effective and have long term impact. The complementary process, the incorporation of DRR
into ECD strategies and programmes, is also worth examining. Incorporation of DRR into ECD
can be seen as an approach to making DRR child-centred and contributing to the goals of the
whole child development:
Integrating disaster risk reduction in sectoral policies is a priority under Hyogo Framework
for Action: The HFA underlines the necessity to secure a strong institutional basis for DRR
implementation through integrating it in sectoral policies. This was re-affirmed at the 2009
Second Global Forum on disaster reduction. To be effective, DRR needs to be incorporated in
the policies of such sectors as health, education and protection. The positive results of
incorporating DRR in education have been demonstrated. These need to extend to ECD as well.
Young children come into contact with health and protection services through their families; if
these services incorporate DRR perspectives as well as a particular understanding of the
relevance of DRR in the early years, young children stand to be shielded from the disaster risks.
Synergy of community-based ECD and community-based disaster risk reduction: There is a
natural link between community-based DRR and ECD. According to the Hyogo Framework for
Action a non-formal learning forum can be a conduit for DRR at the community level. Such
non-formal learning fora are abundant in ECD programmes. Community based activities adn
groupings, e.g. early learning and adult literacy programmes, parenting education groups,
village health committees, village education committees, micro-credit groups, and so on. DRR
can be an engaging theme for discussions and activities among children, between children and
their siblings and parents, as well as for youth and adult groups, including teachers and other
service providers.
Disaster risk reduction protects the investment of ECD programmes: Disaster risk reduction
interventions help early childhood programmes to achieve their objectives of promoting
11 children’s rights to survival, growth, development, participation and protection. Disaster risk
reduction adds value to ECD work by helping to protect investment of the latter.
In sum, ECD and DRR are closely inter-linked. When actions in ECD and DRR are integrated
the cumulative benefits are multi-fold and effectively contribute to achieving the goals of whole
child development as well as building the resilience of communities and nations.
A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR DOVETAILING ECD & DRR
Risk assessment
and analysis
(focusing on impact on
young children)
Children’s participation
Ensure children’s safe and
secure sound living and learning
environment
(in age- &developmentally
appropriate DRR activities)
Advocacy
(with local, national and
international agencies for young
child-focused DRR)
Young children in
disaster prone areas
realise their rights,
thus benefiting from
and contributing to
building community
resilience
(hazard-resistant structures, risk informed
and developmentally appropriate learning
materials, behaviours)
Capacity development
(of children, parents, other carers,
service providers, adolescent
volunteers, DRR personnel)
Disaster preparedness
planning (of families,
kindergartens, preschools,
community ECD centres,
health centres)
VI.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DOVETAILING ECD & DRR IN
CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
Much has been happening in ECD in Central Asia and South Caucasus. Initial efforts have
already been made to promote DRR in education. There is potential for the linking of ECD and
DRR activities in the region too. The convergence of action can take place in pre-schools, ECD
centres, primary healthcare posts or in the home.
Areas where fusion of ECD and DRR can take place
Institutional services: Institutional services for early childhood are provided in health posts,
ECD centres, kindergartens, preschools and infant homes/orphanages (for children without
parental care). ECD-DRR dovetailing can take place in the capacity development of personnel
working in these institutions so that they can improve families’ and children’s preparedness.
12 Activities in kindergartens and preschools can be designed to convey messages about different
types of risk and inculcate in children appropriate conduct before, during and after a disaster.
Age-appropriate play, arts, group activities and discussions are some examples. Earthquake
drills, first-aid techniques, basic safety procedures to safeguard oneself from hazards around the
home and learning to plant trees are other examples. For children under three, key DRR
messages and skills are to be transmitted through carers and parents and included in the process
of family disaster preparedness planning. Even with limited resources, appropriately designed
and sustained measures are effective in protecting children and their carers from hazards.34
Physical structures: Action can be taken to integrate ECD and DRR by making hazard-resistant
structures where children and caregivers congregate.35 Construction standards for preschools,
ECD centres, health posts and orphanages exist in most countries, and they can be revised to
take into account predominant local hazards and local conditions. The areas where riskinformed action can be taken concern the structure itself, its geographical location and the
surroundings. In addition, safety inside the structure can also be better ensured when there is an
appropriate arrangement of furniture and materials, an evacuation plan, pre-determined
emergency shelters and availability of basics for emergencies - first-aid kits, ladders, equipment
for search and rescue, evacuation maps, etc. Standards for young children’s physical
environment in kindergartens, preschools or wherever young children come together as a group
should be a part and parcel of quality standards for child friendly early education.
Home-based and non-formal community-based childcare: In present day Central Asia and South
Caucasus, only a small minority of young children have the opportunity to attend preschool.
Most children, especially those from poor, rural families stay at home under their parents’ care.
Home-based care is also the only practical type of care for children under three years old.
Parenting programmes, caregiver education, home-based/community-based childcare activities
and family disaster preparedness offer excellent opportunities for introducing DRR concepts
and concrete actions.
Advocacy: Advocacy is central to conveying messages in both ECD and DRR. There is
potential and indeed a necessity to include DRR aspects when advocating on ECD and vice
versa, so that DRR efforts reach all young children. Overall the concept and practice of DRR
are still relatively new to the general public. Hitherto most DRR activities have been limited to
selected localities and pilot schools. Advocacy is therefore essential to draw the attention of
decision makers and the public to the crucial role of risk reduction for children under the age of
8.
Upstream advocacy can be in such areas as incorporating DRR in the ECD policy framework, in
pre-service and in-service training of health, education and welfare service providers and in
early learning and development standards. Downstream advocacy focuses on improving
childcare methods and parental sensitisation or increasing young children’s participation.
UNICEF’s Communication for Development (C4D) approach may be can be harnessed to bring
13 about changes in the mindsets and behaviour of decision makers, parents, caregivers and
community members so that all possible action is taken to reduce risks that can threaten young
children’s survival or development.
The preceding paragraphs have discussed possible areas for linking DRR and ECD. The
paragraphs that follow focus on the specific context of Central Asia and South Caucasus, where
an enabling environment for DRR expansion is taking shape and holding promise for successful
DRR-ECD fusion.
Most countries in the region have developed national strategies on disaster response/civil
defence as well as action plans with the goals of providing timely warning to the public of the
threat of natural and man-made disasters, curbing human and material losses from disasters and
improving disaster preparedness. DRR has been included as part of the current UNDAF of
Uzbekistan, Georgia and Armenia, and the Armenian Government is committed to institutional
reform of the DRR system. In Kyrgyzstan, the on-going revision of the National Policy and
Strategy on preparedness and response to emergencies provides a valuable opportunity to
incorporate ECD issues. The experience gained from the DIPECHO V project and the activities
envisaged in the current DIPECHO VI project can help expand the outreach of DRR to young
children.
Prospects for successful DRR-ECD dovetailing exist also in the ECD arena. Through promoting
ECD for many years UNICEF has accumulated a wealth of expertise and experience which can
inform DRR for young children. UNICEF’s support for young children in emergencies offers
unique opportunities for addressing risk reduction initiatives that are young-child focused, in
both development and humanitarian contexts. In Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan,
UNICEF’s strategy for expanded home-based and community-based ECD to address low
preschool attendance provides additional opportunities for community-based DRR programmes
to be tuned in to the needs and realities of young children.
Within the region there are significant developments in early childhood sphere that hold
promises for DRR-ECD fusion. Armenia has adopted the 2008-2015 Pre-School Strategy and
the Act on Alternative Pre-school Services. Early learning and development standards (ELDS)
will be included in its ECD national strategy and can provide possibilities to incorporate DRR
aspects. In Kazakhstan there is a realisation of the importance to develop training courses on
DRR for young children and parents, in formal and non-formal curricular activities. Its Law on
Emergency Situations stipulates that DRR education is to be implemented in preschools, thus
laying the legal basis for accelerating action towards young child-focused DRR. Georgia has put
ECD on the Government agenda and the National Alliance on Early Childhood Development
has developed a comprehensive strategic framework for the system-wide integration of all
elements of ECD in the Health and Education services. Kyrgyzstan has recently adopted its
Preschool Law regulating the sub-sector and outlining key aspects related to children’s safety
and the learning of safe behaviour patterns. The approved State Standard on Preschool
Education and Care contains some important aspects with regard to DRR (building safety, safe
14 behaviour skills, etc.). All this creates a positive environment for action in DRR and ECD to be
intertwined.
VII.
MAINSTREAMING ECD IN DRR IN CENTRAL ASIA AND SOUTH
CAUCASUS: A PROPOSED UNICEF POSITION
Disaster risk reduction is a priority for the governments and civil society in Central Asia and
South Caucasus, a region prone to frequent earthquakes, landslides, floods and other natural
hazards. Disaster risk reduction will be more effective when it takes into account the
specificities of young children who are the most vulnerable group in society. UNICEF’s
proposed position is to embed risk reduction strategies and approaches into development
programmes. Mainstreaming ECD within the purview of DRR is grounded in the rights of
children and the different specificities of children under the age of 8. Recognising the critical
importance of DRR that is young child-focused, UNICEF urges governments, civil society and
the international community to make every effort to mainstream ECD in DRR. UNICEF is
committed to take all possible action in this regard and promote risk reduction through ECD
initiatives which themselves need to be significantly expanded to reach the most vulnerable.
Disaster risk reduction needs to start with young children and be young child-friendly.
Children typically represent 50-60% of those affected by disaster. They are much more
susceptible to conditions causing high mortality and serious injury. Young children are
especially vulnerable to the health risks from injuries and from diseases related to malnutrition,
poor water and sanitation that usually follow a disaster. Psychological stress exacerbated by
disruption of care and education, makes them more vulnerable. Suffering is considerably more
acute among the very young. Disaster risk reduction is therefore more effective when it starts
with young children, takes into account their specificities and alerts and educates caregivers and
service providers in this respect. Young child-friendly DRR measures help the most vulnerable
to realise their inalienable rights to survival, growth, development, participation and protection.
Disaster risk reduction needs to be seen and conducted through the lens of young children.
The appropriate approach to all DRR action is to assess the hazards and the response through
the lens of young children. This calls for systematic assessment of the exposure and
susceptibility to hazards of different age sub-groups,36 attention to designing developmentally
appropriate activities and to the channels through which risk reduction activities are conducted.
Disaster risk reduction initiatives need to dovetail with the ongoing work to support young
children’s survival, development, protection and participation as well as with plans to expand
and improve services for young children and their families.
Build community resilience from the perspective of the rights of young children. UNICEF
is committed to achieving the goal of the Hyogo Framework for Action: building the resilience
of nations and communities to disasters through DRR. Harnessing the capacity to maintain
safety and resilience is at the core of DRR. Resilience comes from the ability to resist, absorb,
accommodate and recover from the effects of hazards in a timely and efficient manner,
15 including through the preservation and restoration of essential basic structures and functions37.
From the perspective of the Rights of the Child, there is an additional prerequisite to achieving
resilience: a community can become resilient only when children themselves, generally above
age 3, and caregivers for those under age 3, are encouraged to be part of risk reduction efforts.
Young children can play an important role in reinforcing DRR messages within their immediate
environments: within the family, in the home, at school and kindergarten, in the park or
playground, etc. Thus they are not just recipients of and participants in DRR messaging, they
can also be inventors and disseminators of some basic messages about risk avoidance,
mitigation and reduction,
Make the best use of available knowledge in ECD. The wealth of knowledge and experience
that UNICEF and other organisations have accumulated in childhood matters provides unique
opportunities to make DRR young child-focused. It can guide DRR initiatives to fit in with
children’s needs along their developmental continuum. It helps create and maintain an
environment where children are at the centre of all DRR actions.
Explore all possibilities for blending ECD-DRR efforts. Mainstreaming ECD in the purview
of DRR is a two-way process where all possibilities of embedding one into the other need to be
explored. DRR needs to include a young child-focus, while ECD programmes need to include
elements that can enhance children’s capacities and reduce their vulnerabilities. Emergency
preparedness plans of kindergartens, preschools and community health centres must be
integrated into local disaster risk management plans.
Recognising infants and toddlers’ dependence on caregivers, and taking into account that the
majority of young children in the region receive care through home-based or community-based
interventions, UNICEF promotes young child-focused DRR not only in kindergartens and preschools, but also through non-formal and informal activities within the family or through carers.
Ensure the synergy of bottom-up and top-down interventions for ECD-DRR fusion.
Mainstreaming ECD in DRR necessitates a combination of bottom-up and top-down
interventions. Bottom-up interventions encompass a variety of DRR activities in preschools and
the community, with the participation of parents, caregivers, community members - and
children. They may include, for example, raising the concerns of young children and caregivers,
putting forward community perspectives in programme design, or communicating knowledge
about the local environment and good practices.
Top-down interventions ensure that ECD principles are incorporated in government policy for
DRR, in the associated institutions and in all DRR related capacity building programmes. A
centralised information system on hazards which is readily accessible to the public would
facilitate planning at all levels.
Work through networks and partnerships. UNICEF should network and build partnerships
with national and local structures and other development organisations that promote DRR and
16 ECD. It should endeavour to highlight the issues concerning young children in both the
discourse and action for DRR at the local, national and international levels. It should encourage
the use of existing materials and resources, respect and build on relevant local DRR practices as
well as the lessons and experience from other organisations.
Advocacy is a key strategy. By advocating for the integration of the rights and particular needs
of young children in DRR, and for the inclusion of DRR aspects in ECD, a convergence of
aspirations and coherence of programmes will be achieved. Experience gained from initiatives
to mainstream ECD in the purview of DRR will form a body of knowledge and evidence for
sustained advocacy to promote child-friendly DRR. Special attention should be placed on the
documentation and dissemination of good practices. UNICEF should also facilitate the
development of relevant tools and models for mainstreaming ECD in DRR.
Use a three-pillar approach to capacity development. Capacity development is central to
reducing disaster risks for young children. Efforts to strengthen capacities will target the
governmental systems and structures at different levels responsible for the care, development
and protection of children. The second pillar is the capacity development of young children
themselves, to help them develop the necessary skills. The third pillar is the parents and carers
for children who are not enrolled in any structured programmes. The three-pillar approach to
capacity building will enhance children’s empowerment and improve their participation, while
effectively engaging caregivers in the design and implementation of DRR measures and
implicating government agencies as key duty bearers.
VIII. STRATEGIC PROGRAMME GUIDANCE FOR THE PROMOTION OF ECD
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF DRR
In UNICEF a systematic approach to identify, assess and reduce risks is at the heart of DRR.
This is to minimise the vulnerability and increase the resilience and capacity to cope with
disasters at the individual, family and national levels. It has to be planned for, and explicit
measures to which people are held to account put in place. Disaster risk reduction should
concentrate not only on emergency preparedness - which has been the key aim of UNICEF’s
global preparedness efforts - but also on mitigation and prevention components in their
development programmes38.
The momentum is building up within UNICEF to make DRR a priority of its work. It has been
recognised that DRR should be integrated in sectoral development programmes. It is therefore
essential to sharpen the programmatic focuses of DRR in line with the needs and characteristics
of young children. It is also necessary to recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
The needs of infants and toddlers are different from those of the 3-5 age group, the capacities of
3-5 year olds differ from 6-8 year olds; and the needs of the pre-natal group are addressed
through parent-targeting programmes. The emphasis on certain entry points - whether mainly
centre-based ECD, or home-based or a combination of them – may vary among countries
depending on the country context.
17 The key thrusts for mainstreaming early childhood in DRR are to influence national policies in
both DRR and ECD, to intensify partnerships with national and local government, with
international and NGO partners, as well as to sustain evidence-based advocacy for young
children in DRR.
Recently UNICEF has developed a conceptual framework for DRR with the goal to enhance the
rights of vulnerable children and women in hazard prone communities. Since young children
are the most vulnerable community members, promoting their rights and strengthening
their resilience will directly contribute to the increased resilience of the whole community
and the enhancement of their rights. Putting young children at the centre of DRR is
paramount.
Based on the above, this paper proposes a Conceptual Framework for Mainstreaming Early
Childhood in Disaster Risk Reduction. It builds on the strategic directions and priority actions
recommended in the UNICEF Concept Note on DRR, while at the same time framing them
through the lens of young children and their best interests.
18 Table 1
Conceptual Framework for Mainstreaming Early Childhood in Disaster Risk Reduction
GOAL: The rights of young children in hazard prone communities are realised through
reduction of risks that jeopardise their survival and development.
Strategic
Direction
Priority Action
Outcome
1.Identify and • Collaborate with national and local partners to establish a •Shared
knowledge
assess disaster
sound knowledge base on disaster risks and their effects
base on
risk
on young children of different age subgroups.
disaster risk
• Identify possible action that caregivers and young
with a focus
children can take to understand, mitigate and prevent
on young
particular risks
• Identify priority areas and communities to integrate early children.
childhood issues in DRR and develop capacities of key
• Risk
actors in risk assessment with focus on young children
informed
and care givers.
national and
• Promote and advocate for the inclusion of young
sub-national
children’s perspectives of disaster risk, of their
development
vulnerabilities and evolving capacities in the
plans/strategie
development of local and national development
s
plans/strategies (incl. in EPRP, Sector Wide Approaches
(SWAPs) and UNDAFs).
• Promote early childhood programme planning that is
informed by disaster risk
• Empowered
2.Promote
• Promote the voice and participation of young girls and
community
boys and their caregivers in analysing risks and planning children,
resilience
processes at the local level for preventing, mitigating and caregivers and
community
addressing disaster risks.
members to
• Create and strengthen strategic partnerships to build
participate in,
community resilience, defining results, roles and
influence and
responsibilities of key actors, as well as performance
act on
monitoring, with a focus on the impact on young
reducing
children.
disaster risks.
• Collaborate with partners at all levels in advocacy,
knowledge sharing and resource development to advance
• Safer and
positive DRR outcomes for young children.
more resilient
• Promote community-led and age-appropriate, child-led
communities
DRR activities
and systems.
• Ensure UNICEF programmes in health, WASH,
education, nutrition and protection \for young children
contribute to a reduction of risk in disaster prone contexts • Safety of
young
• Promote risk informed family disaster planning,
children
structured learning and age-appropriate group activities
maintained
for young children in DRR
including in
•
disasters
• Effective
3. Strengthen • Support the capacity development of national and subresponse to the
humanitarian
national partners in young child-focused emergency
humanitarian
preparedness
preparedness, response and early recovery.
needs and to
and response • Collaborate with UN agencies, NGO and other partners
the rights of
& early
to enhance national, regional and international
children in
recovery
mechanisms and capacities in preparedness (including
disasters
early warning), response & early recovery with a focus
on young children
19 Links to critical Key
Result Areas (KRAs)
under MSTP Focus
Areas (FA)
Increased national
capacity to reduce gender
disparities (FA2)
Improved policy &
regulations re: child
protection &rights (FA4)
Improved child health,
nutrition, maternal care
and increased access to
sustainable water and
sanitation (FA1)
Better protection of child
from impacts of natural
disasters (FA4)
Enhanced participation by
children & young people
(FA5).
Prevention of violence,
exploitation, abuse,
unnecessary separation
for all children (FA1, 4).
Improved access and
educational quality (FA2).
Every child is covered
with life saving
interventions -CCCs
(FA1).
Restore education after
emergencies (FA2).
The above proposed framework provides a general basis for the programmatic guidance to make
young children visible in the DRR agenda. As discussed in the following paragraphs, many
initiatives can be undertaken with a view to mainstreaming ECD in DRR. Some can be inserted
into existing activities, thus strengthening them and bringing about ‘quick wins’. Others may be
new activities that require only modest inputs yet achieve considerable results. And some will
be of larger scope and have more long-term impact. Activities are to be designed and
implemented based on the specific needs and characteristics of young children along their
developmental continuum (described in section III).
Quick wins
Some DRR activities are under way with the support of UNICEF or its national partners or
NGOs. With minimal extra effort they can be reinforced to bring better results in terms of
reducing risks and protecting young children’s well-being. Some such ‘quick win’ possibilities
are discussed below.
Inclusion of young children’s issues in hazard mapping and educational materials: In the
context of disaster management many countries have been conducting hazard mapping and
capacity and vulnerability mapping. This opens up a channel for highlighting young children in
those undertakings, such as the varied needs of children in different age subgroups and their
evolving capacity according to their developmental level. Depending on the local context, the
hazard mapping can also be done as a separate process focusing exclusively on children of 0-8
years old with the participation of caregivers, preschool and primary school teachers and DRR
specialists.
Educational materials which have already been developed to convey DRR messages to school
children can be adapted for children above age 3. Such adaptation of materials needs to take into
account the fact that they are to be used not only in preschools but also in the non-formal
settings of home-based programmes. Materials for primary and preschool teachers can be
adapted for caregivers of children under three years old. Primary school teachers are encouraged
to work closely with preschool teachers and caregivers to ensure the continuity of children’s
risk-informed behaviour.
Provide risk informed basic supplies to ECD centres: ECD initiatives often provide basic
supplies to kindergartens and preschools, especially in very poor areas. Apart from toys and
other preschool supplies, they can also include tools that enhance the disaster preparedness of
young children, such as first aid kits, safety-related instruments and pictorial brochures about
risks and how to address them.
In addition and depending on the local context and traditions, a range of materials can be
developed or enhanced to include DRR aspects, such as games, puzzles, cartoons, songs,
dances, skits, nature trips, drawing and poster competitions, etc. Art has been proven time and
20 again to be an effective method of young children’s learning. It needs to be used extensively for
DRR promotion.
Advocacy and awareness-raising for disaster risk reduction: Advocacy for DRR is on-going in
the region. It can be adapted to take young children into account. Adults need messages that
help them to understand several crucial points: young children are the most vulnerable to
hazards; caregivers for children under three years old need to participate just as much as
preschool teachers in DRR; children from the age of three have an increasing capacity to
participate as risk reduction actors. The knowledge of young children’s development and their
coping mechanisms should be used to frame advocacy messages. While some of such advocacy
can start immediately, it should be sustained in order to have longer-term effects.
Make community-led disaster risk reduction child-centred: There is now a greater
understanding of the critical role of community-led DRR in strengthening community
resilience.39 More community-based DRR activities are being implemented. On their part, ECD
programmes also enhance parents’ knowledge and skills in childcare. As community members
participate in both activities, there is scope for incorporating DRR in ECD interventions and
vice versa. Doing so requires a low level of effort, yet can bring discernible changes in the
mindset and behaviour of the community.
Adapt capacity building programmes: The on-going capacity building programmes for
preschool teachers and administrators, health professionals, parents and childcare volunteers can
be enriched with disaster risk reduction aspects, including preparing for emergency action.
Programme contents should be developed according to the particularities of children’s different
age groups. As appropriate, programme design should incorporate the participation families,
young children or both, through actions customized to young children’s developmental stages.
New, low-input activities
Conduct drills: Certain low-input activities can substantially minimize the vulnerability of
young children. One example is the introduction in all kindergartens and preschools in disasterprone areas of simple, age-appropriate drills for the hazards that have a high likelihood of
happening. Basic safety rules on personal conduct before, during and after an emergency, as
well as the arrangement of instruments and toys, tables and chairs inside the facilities, can be
taught in preschools and community early learning centres. Along with being their right, play is
the work of young children and their coping mechanism in stressful situations. DRR should be
conducted as much as possible through play, games and group interactions. For infants and
toddlers, the safety rules and drills will be provided through training parents and caregivers.
Designating a special day for Disaster Preparedness and Risk Reduction in hospitals, preschools
as well as in the communities/families can help to maintain the focus on young children.
Database on young children: An information base on children under the age of 8 in disasterprone areas is an essential starting point. This does not mean an entirely new database is to be
set up, as most countries already have systems and mechanisms for information collection and
21 update. The issue is to make sure the existing database contains relevant information about
young children and the carers of the very young ones which can be used for risk assessment,
preparedness planning and establishment of child protection mechanism and networks. The
database should also provide a picture on the situation of health centres and preschools – for
example, their location, the level of risk posed by their geographical position and physical state,
available alternative safe shelters, the number of structures that need to be retrofitted, etc. The
enhancement of the database can be done with inputs from specialists in emergency
management and early childhood as well as community members.
In addition, it is also important to conduct assessments in disaster prone areas of children’s
vulnerability and capacity according to their age groups. It will help ECD and DRR actors in
developing their action plans. It also provides a basis for these actors to frame advocacy
messages with authorities and enhance the visibility of young children in risk reduction and
emergency management.
Pre-arrangement of shelters and pre-positioning materials and supplies: Safe shelters need to
be designated for young children, especially for infants and toddlers, and their carers must be
made aware of their location. Prior to the pre-positioning of necessary supplies essential for
young children’s development to continue unhindered, an assessment of existing and required
materials is needed. ECD specialists are urged to seek the cooperation of the disaster
management authorities to ensure the pre-positioning of basic supplies and their access.
Activities for longer-term impact
Integrate early childhood principles in DRR planning at all levels: Disaster risk reduction is
intimately connected to processes of human development. As development options may
increase or reduce risk, steps can be taken to make development choices that contribute towards
risk reduction.
To protect the rights of young children in all circumstances, ECD programming must be an
integral part of pre-emergency and post-disaster recovery planning both at the national level and
in the communities. It needs to be part of the region’s overall strategy for DRR and a focus of
the work of the national and international platforms on DRR.
Ensure safety of structures: Making all structures safe is largely a long term process and may
require substantial investments. But a key lesson learned from numerous disasters is that poorly
constructed structures have caused most deaths, and that disaster-resistant buildings are a sine
qua non. The incremental costs (from 4-12%) of building a hazard-resistant school are well
below the costs of replacing them. The construction of buildings frequented by young children
must be guided by hazard-resistant standards. This calls for the development and enforcement
of building codes and construction guidelines for multi-hazard resistant structures.
Sustain capacity development efforts: Capacity development should be sustained in targeted
locations as well as extended to all disaster prone areas. They must be directed at key drivers.
The drivers are representatives of different levels of authorities in charge of emergency
22 management and early childhood, professionals working in these fields, parents and carers.
Children themselves from around the age of three can be active drivers. Capacity development
initiatives need to focus on enhancing skills to assess risks and their effects on children of
varied age groups and to design risk reduction measures accordingly.
With regard to health, education and welfare service providers who reach young children,
capacity development needs to be done through both pre-service and in-service and training.
Training materials should incorporate risk reduction aspects which have direct relevance to
improved disaster preparedness of young children. Parental education, family disaster planning
and community-based DRR initiatives need to be sustained so that children who are not enrolled
in structured ECD programmes are properly prepared. As regards DRR professionals, they will
need information about young children’s issues which ECD specialists are in a position to
provide. DRR specialists need to be aware of the different needs and capacity levels of children
in different subgroups in order to design effective programmes.
Work in partnership: No single organisation can effectively address all the issues related to
aligning DRR with young children. To make DRR work for young children necessitates
working and networking with national and international partners, with civil society
organisations. At the regional and national levels, mainstreaming ECD will require ECD
professionals to collaborate closely with the institutions in charge of disaster management and
preparedness planning. Similar partnerships at the local level need to be strongly encouraged
too.
Sustain advocacy for young child-focused DRR. At the national level, advocacy should be
accelerated with the national platforms on DRR and with ministries responsible for emergency
situations and ministries of education and health. Advocacy should be for an appropriate
national policy framework, with a budget and human resources to enable the fusion of the ECD
in DRR and vice versa. Advocacy needs to be grounded in children’s rights and their linkage to
building a resilient community.
Campaigns for child-focused DRR, periodic thematic events and a special day every year
dedicated to promoting DRR-ECD integration are some options. “Disaster risk reduction starts
with young children” needs to be made an integral part of the country programmes within the
UN Development Assistance Framework. Putting young children at the centre of DRR is not a
one-time process but requires long term commitment.
Advocating for the inclusion of early childhood issues can also be done through networks, in
both early childhood and DRR, many of which already exist in the region. The mainstreaming
of early childhood within the purview of DRR is a new concept in UNICEF’s programming.
The process will offer lessons that can be learned and shared among countries. Documenting
good practices and exchanging cross-country experience will be essential so as to build up an
empirical evidence for advocacy for young children’s rights in risk reduction and disaster
preparedness.
23 Monitoring and evaluation (M&E). An effective way to mainstream ECD in DRR is to include
different aspects related to children’s survival, growth, development, participation and
protection in the monitoring and evaluation of DRR programmes. DRR initiatives need to be
evaluated from the point of view of how they contribute towards reducing risks and mitigating
disaster impact on young children. ECD programmes need to be evaluated against the extent to
which they successfully create and maintain a safe and risk-minimised environment for
children, and the acquired skills that foster children’s resilience. DRR-related aspects can be
included in the M&E framework for ECD. Monitoring and evaluation can also be included in
the capacity development programmes. Close collaboration between DRR and ECD
professionals is again essential.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Until 2005, the value of DRR was under-appreciated, notwithstanding its important linkage to
sustainable development. Governments and the international community were directing their
concerns principally at disaster response. Nowadays with an increasingly rich mosaic of risk
reduction activities ongoing, the landscape has changed. Not only has DRR become a priority
for UN member states and agencies, it has also opened up new thinking on risk reduction that
should, and could, make a difference to those who need it most - children in their early
childhood.
Young children have typically not been a priority topic in DRR circles, even though they are the
most affected in a disaster. In fact, they have been invisible as compared with other interest
groups. Yet DRR efforts will be at best ‘second best’ in their effectiveness if they neglect young
children. In the long run, ignoring young children is costly for governments and donors alike.
Moreover, it is morally unacceptable. On the other hand, putting a young-child face on DRR
efforts brings immediate and long term benefits to children as well as to their country.
UNICEF is resolved to advocate for changes in the status quo. Disaster risk reduction must start
with young children.
24 REFERENCES
Anagnosti, S. (2008) UNICEF CEECIS RO and UN ISDR Cooperation in the Area of Disaster
Risk Reduction and Education in the CEECIS Region
Back, C., C. Cameron & T. Tanner (2009) Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking Stock
and moving forward.
Bracken, P. (1998). Hidden agendas: Deconstructing post traumatic stress disorder. In P.
Bracken & C. Petty (Eds.), Rethinking the trauma of war (pp. 38–59). London: Save the
Children Fund UK and Free Association Press.
Beristain, C., Valdoseda,M., and Paez (1996) Coping with fear and loss at an individual and
collective level: Political repression in Guatemalan Indigenous communities. Paul Haupt
Publishers.
Boyden, J. & G. Mann (2005) “Children’s risk, resilience and coping in extreme situations” in
Michael Ungar (ed.) Pathways to resilience. Sage Publications
Cairns, E. (1996) Children and Political Violence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Consultative Group on ECCD. www.ecdgroup.com
Deering, C. G. (2000). "A cognitive developmental approach to understanding how children
cope with disasters." Journal of Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 13(1): 7-16.
DFID (2004) Disaster risk reduction: a development concern. A scoping study on links between
disaster risk reduction, poverty and development.
DIPECHO VI Central Asia Proposal. Version March 15, 2010
DIPECHO VI South Caucasus Consolidated Proposal- Final, March 2010
Dubrow, N.F., and Garbarino, J. (1989) Living in the war zone: mothers and young children in
a public housing development
ECHO/ISDR/UNICEF (2009) Compendium of Good Practices and Tools on Disaster Risk
Reduction in Education in Central Asia.
Ekşi, A., K. L. Braun, et al. (2007). "Risk factors for the development of PTSD and depression
among child and adolescent victims following a 7.4 magnitude earthquake." International
Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 11(3): 190-199
Engle, P., Black, M.M., Behrman, J.R., Cabral de Mello, M., Gertler, P.J., Kapiriri, L.,
Martorell, R., Young, M.E. (2007). “Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in
more than 200 million children in the developing world”. The Lancet, 369: 229-242
ERM (2006) Natural Disasters and DRR measures- a desk review of costs and benefits
Grotberg, E. H. (2001). "Resilience programs for children in disaster." Ambulatory Child Health
7(2)
Heckman, J.(2000). “Policies to foster human capital”. Research in Economics, 54
25 The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study to Age 40 (2005). Available on line at:
http://www.highscope.org/Research/Perryproject
ISDR (2007) Words Into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo Framework.
ISDR (2007) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters
ISDR (2009) Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. Outcome Document: Chair’s
Summary of the Second Session Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction.
ISDR (2009) Chair’s Summary, Global Platform. National Progress Reports on the
Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
ISDR/ World Bank/ CAREC. (2009). Central Asia and Caucasus Disaster Risk Management
Initiative. Risk Assessment for Central Asia and Caucasus Desk Study Review.
Jones, L. (2008). "Responding to the needs of children in crisis." International Review of
Psychiatry 20(3): 291-303.
Kamel, H. (2006) Early childhood care and education in emergency situations. Background
paper prepared for the 2007 Education for All Global Monitoring Report.
Krishna Kumar K.C & Daniel Kull (2009), at the Global Platform for DRR (on cost benefit)
La Trobe, S. & I. Davis (2005) Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction. A tool for development
organisation. Tearfund.
Mercuri, A. and H. L. Angelique (2004). "Children's responses to natural, technological, and natech disasters." Community Mental Health Journal 40(2): 167-175.
Myers, R. (1995) The Twelve Who Survive: Strengthening programmes of Early childhood
Development in the Third World. Ypislanti, Mich.: High/Scope Press.
Prinstein, M. J. and A. M. La Greca (1996). "Children's coping assistance: How parents,
teachers, and friends help children cope after a natural disaster." Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology 25(4): 463.
Save the Children UK (2007) Legacy of Disasters
Shonkoff, J. (2009). “Preventing
http://www.project-syndicate.org
Toxic
Stress
in
Children”.
Smilan, C. (2009). "Building resiliency to childhood
learning.(report)." Childhood Education 85(6): 380(5).
trauma
Project
Syndicate. through
arts-based
Swenson, C. C., C. F. Saylor, et al. (1996). "Impact of a natural disaster on preschool children:
Adjustment 14 months after a hurricane." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 66(1): 122-130.
UNESCO (2007) Education for All Global Monitoring Report
UNICEF (2005) All Rights for All Children: UNICEF in Central and Eastern Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States. UNICEF CEECIS Regional Office
UNICEF (2006) Programming Experiences in Early Child Development
26 UNICEF (2007) Towards the development of a Disaster Risk Reduction strategy for
UNICEF. Report of the UNICEF Global Consultation on Disaster Risk Reduction and
Education.
UNICEF (2008a) Early Childhood Development in the CEECIS Region. Situation and
Guidance
UNICEF (2008b) Emerging challenges for children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia –
Focus on disparities
UNICEF (2009a) Draft Good Practices
UNICEF (2009b) “Summary Report on UNICEF South Caucasus Workshop on Disaster
Preparedness and Risk Reduction in Education”
UNICEF (2009c) “Report of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Education workshop”
UNICEF (2009d) Concept Note. Disaster Risk Reduction in UNICEF. Towards safer and
resilient communities for children
United Nations (2009) 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Risk and
poverty in a changing climate. Invest today for a safer tomorrow.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1981). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood.
Waller, D. (2006). "Art therapy for children: How it leads to change." Clinical Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 11(2): 271-282.
Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. (p. 134–143). Armonk, NY: Sharpe
Wisner, B; P. Blaikie; T. Cannon; I. Davis (2004). At Risk: natural hazards, people’s
vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London and New York.
Zafeirakou, A. (2009) Country profiles on emergency preparedness (Draft) for Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan
27 ANNEX 1
STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECD
ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE DIPECHO VI PROJECT FOR CENTRAL ASIA
AND SOUTH CAUCASUS
1. Outreach to young children not having access to preschools. The DIPECHO VI project
has identified a number of activities targeting children who are enrolled in preschools. This is
encouraging as it points to an evolution in the approach towards DRR by bringing into focus the
necessity to start DRR with young children. At the same time it should be noted that the
proposed DRR activities for young children are limited to preschools, which means that only
those who are enrolled will have direct exposure to and benefit from them.
The principle objective of the DIPECHO VI project is to “support strategies to enable
communities and institutions to better prepare for, mitigate and respond to disasters and build a
safe environment for children”. To achieve this objective it is insufficient to focus only on
preschools. A safe environment for children implies that all children living in that environment
must be part of the DRR initiative, and not only those who have the opportunity to enrol. It will
be important to aim at extending the project’s outreach to non-formal settings, through for
example:
o
Teaching young children about basic disaster preparedness and mitigation by maximising
the use of different mass media: radio and TV programmes; through special TV spots using
cartoon characters that are familiar to young children; through community loudspeakers to
transmit messages; The use of these media enables the transmission of important messages
far beyond the walls of preschools and reaches out to all children. The animated TV
programme for young children in Kyrgyzstan called Keremet Koch (Magic Journey) and
conveying messages about children's behaviour during earthquakes is a good example.
o
Opting for a variety of activities to convey DRR messages and which can be conducted both
in preschools and in the community: group work; informal discussions in nature; use of
drawing books, dances, songs, puzzles and games; organising drawing competition for all
children in the community; community-walks; tell-my-parents. These low-cost solutions
designed with account of young children’s psychology, based on their developmental level
are as effective for those children enrolled in preschools as for those who lack such
opportunity.
o
Encouraging the child-to-child approach so that preschool children can convey DRR
information to their younger siblings and other toddlers in the neighbourhood.
2. Combine expertise in both disaster risk reduction and ECD. In most countries DRR has
been addressed largely through mechanisms for emergency management. To achieve the
28 objective of integrating a child-focused DRR into existing policies and legislations, the
involvement and inputs of ECD professionals should be enhanced in DRR platforms.
Policy and advocacy briefs on young children in emergencies and the role of DRR in ensuring
children’s security and development will need to be developed, using the combined expertise of
professionals in these two fields. Used effectively, they are valuable tools to inform and
influence policies. Similarly, the inputs of DRR specialists need to be sought in the discourse on
national education policies and strategies and in the review of the national education
curriculum. In short, a new partnership needs to be nurtured between ECD and DRR
professionals at local, regional and national levels with the aim to mainstream young childfocused DRR.
3.
Invest in systematic capacity building. DRR with a focus on young children should be
incorporated into both pre-service and in-service training programmes for health, education and
welfare service providers in order to have long term effects. Given the distinct nature of each
type of training with regard to its length and participants’ background, it would be advisable to
design separate modules about young children and DRR. To the extent that the project budget
permits, for each type of training there would be modules which reflect the needs of distinct
age-groups of children.
4.
Emphasise the family connection. Currently the DIPECHO VI project focuses mainly
on the activities that will take place within the boundaries of selected preschools. Its linkage
with parents and families is not yet featured. However, such a link is important in the chain of
DRR efforts. The information children receive in preschools needs to be reinforced at home by
parents and family members so that it shapes their behaviour and action. Children can also be
effective transmitters of information they receive at preschool to their parents and younger
siblings. Therefore the family connection will need to be highlighted when activities are
implemented. As far as possible, parents need to be called upon to be involved in the activities,
as providers of care and support, as active participants in the design of activities and as a source
of encouragement to children. Their involvement in this process will help both parents and
children to be better informed about risk.
5.
Highlight young children’s vulnerability. All stakeholders need to have a good
understanding of young children’s rights, their susceptibility to disaster risk based on their age
and development level, and their particular needs in emergencies. Several kinds of activities can
be conducted to highlight young children’s issues. The project’s planned public awarenessraising campaigns on DRR will be one of the effective channels to build up this understanding.
Another channel will be the training for current and future preschools teachers, child care
volunteers, NGOs, CBOs and decision-makers at different levels. Accordingly, consistent
messages adapted to different target groups and calling for concrete action have to be conveyed.
In addition, young children’s vulnerability and their evolving capacity based on their
developmental level should be underlined in the training manuals and guides that the project
will develop/improve for preschool teachers and sector managers.
29 6.
Define criteria for a safe pre-school and community based child care centre.
Ensuring the security of preschools is one of the key objectives of DRR for young children. In
this regard, the project envisages providing basic disaster preparedness and mitigation
equipment to preschools and organising simulations. However, before these steps can be taken,
criteria for children’s safety and their development need to be defined. There are aspects
relating to the structure itself, including the location (in a safe area where there is low likelihood
of hazards), its physical state (some may need to be retrofitted, repaired or rebuilt), its
surroundings and the interior arrangement of furniture and supplies. In addition, there are nonstructural aspects such as safety procedures and equipment, early warning mechanism and firstaid.
7.
Develop criteria for good practices. Disaster risk reduction targeting children birth-8
years old is a new area both in ECD and DRR. The documentation of good practices and lessons
learned which is recognised as essential to inform national policy on DRR in education, is one
of the activities planned in the DIPECHO projects. Lessons learned and good practices in this
area will also have critical influence on the implementation of future projects and for scaling up.
It would therefore be important to first develop a set of criteria for a “good practice”. The
criteria, on the one hand, will facilitate the selection of good practices and, on the other, can
immediately guide the implementation of current activities.
8.
Promote participation and coordination at implementation level. At the community
level, focus needs to be placed on a strategy to promote participation of parents and caregivers
as well as young children themselves. This may be achieved through heightening parents’
interest in having access to better quality services. The participation and support of the health
system is also crucial and should not be neglected as it is often the only system that comes into
contact with very young children (under 3 years) and their families. In addition to delivering
basic health care services, the health system can provide invaluable information on health and
nutrition related safety as well as counselling to families. Local level coordination should also
be strengthened for more effective implementation of the project activities. At the same time,
collaboration with alliances that work to promote ECD and DRR in the region should be sought.
They would be the allies which can provide support to enhance project implementation.40
30 ANNEX 2
DIPECHO & Disaster Risk Reduction
Disaster preparedness contributes to saving lives, speeds up recovery and reduces the
impact of future hazards. Disaster preparedness is proof that people are far from helpless
when facing hazards with the appropriate local knowledge, practice and response
mechanisms.
Why prioritize disaster preparedness?
Every year millions of people are affected by droughts, floods, landslides, cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis, wild
land fires, and other hazards. Increased population densities, growing mega-cities, environmental degradation, and
the impact of Climate Change adding to poverty, make the impact of natural hazards worse. In the past few years,
natural disasters have struck with significant impact in all parts of the world, from the Indian Ocean tsunami to
earthquakes in Iran and South Asia, from cyclones in Burma, the Caribbean and the Pacific to heavy flooding,
mudflows and landslides in several parts of Asia and Latin America. Hundreds of thousands of people lose their
lives and millions their livelihood, due to disasters caused by natural hazards. Billions worth of homes, livestock
and investments are destroyed every year in such crises.
An estimated 97% of natural disaster-related deaths occur in developing countries and these countries bear the
heaviest the burden in terms of livelihoods lost. In addition, it is often the poorest communities that suffer the
most as they tend to live in greater density in badly-built housing on land at risk. They possess limited resources
to deal with the risks they face.
Most hazards are sudden-onset events and take people by surprise. Although it is impossible to prevent hazards,
the impact of the disasters can be limited through the preparedness of the populations and investing in effective
response-mechanisms at local, regional and national level.
ECHO´s approach
The European Commission’s humanitarian aid department (ECHO) provides rapid and effective support to the
victims of disasters beyond the European Union's borders. On average, approximately 16% of ECHO
humanitarian relief is a response to sudden-onset natural disasters. The importance of disaster preparedness is
clearly recognised in ECHO's mandate and in the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid adopted in 2007. In
1996 ECHO launched a specific programme, DIPECHO (Disaster Preparedness ECHO) dedicated to disaster
preparedness. Disaster preparedness also has a central place in the 23 principles for Good Humanitarian
Donorship agreed in 2003 in Stockholm by leading humanitarian donors, including ECHO.
ECHO's humanitarian mandate prescribes a focus on saving lives, providing relief and thus assisting the most
vulnerable groups. ECHO therefore prioritizes 'people-oriented' preparedness measures.
The main component of ECHO's contribution to the global Disaster Risk Reduction efforts remains the DIPECHO
programme which now covers 7 disaster-prone regions. The DIPECHO programme therefore targets highly
vulnerable communities living in some of the most disaster-prone regions of the world. This is what we term our
'community-based approach'.
The DIPECHO programme
Since the launch of the DIPECHO programme in 1996, ECHO has invested more than €180 million in disaster
preparedness.
The DIPECHO programme had been expanded over the years and now covers seven disaster prone regions: the
Caribbean, Central America, South America, Central Asia, South Asia, South East Asia and South East Africa and
South West Indian Ocean. The projects funded by the programme include simple and inexpensive preparatory
measures, often implemented by the communities themselves. They have proven extremely effective in limiting
damage and saving lives when hazards suddenly strike. DIPECHO-projects will typically emphasize training,
capacity-building, awareness-raising, establishment or improvement of local early-warning systems and
31 contingency-planning. There are numerous examples that these simple and community-owned preparedness
measures enable communities at risk to save their own lives and livelihoods when disaster strikes. As any other
relief provided by ECHO, DIPECHO projects are carried out by European-based aid agencies and UN agencies in
close cooperation with local NGOs and authorities.
The best results are only achieved when there is effective co-operation between citizens, civil society groups and
local, regional and national authorities. ECHO has found that in most cases, community organisations and
municipalities are enthusiastic and actively contribute to DIPECHO activities. In 2008 alone, ECHO has allocated
€32.3 million for disaster preparedness in the Central Asia, South East Asia, Central America and South East
Africa and South West Indian Ocean.
Integrating disaster preparedness in relief operations
ECHO’s contribution to disaster preparedness goes well beyond the DIPECHO programme as many of ECHO’s
major humanitarian financing decisions include disaster preparedness or mitigation of disaster impacts as an
objective. Even post-disaster emergency responses often have a risk reduction element. Examples of such activities
include livestock shelters built after extreme cold snaps to protect against further losses of depleted herds (Peru);
training and equipping of community-based fire brigades in forest fire risk zones (Indonesia); cholera preparedness
and health information (Malawi); and anti-rust measures to prevent water pollution and protect pipes from the
effects of volcanic ash (Ecuador).
These activities are undertaken as an integral part of the ECHO relief operations in areas affected by ongoing
humanitarian crises. The establishment of suitable crisis information, alert and rapid damage-assessment systems
for the humanitarian community can also be considered as mainstreaming.
In recent years, ECHO has commissioned an evaluation on DRR mainstreaming and launched humanitarian
decisions with significant preparedness components such as the 2007 Sahel Global Plan, the 2008 and 2009
decisions on regional drought preparedness in the Great Horn of Africa, or the 2008 Ad hoc decision on Myanmar
following cyclone Nargis.
Advocacy towards mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development cooperation
The DIPECHO programme has been designed to demonstrate measures and initiatives at community-level and can
serve as components of integrated disaster risk reduction strategies for a municipality, district or even at national
level. However, Disaster Risk Reduction is a long-term development effort and ECHO is therefore encouraging
other stakeholders that can provide longer-term financing to systematically integrate disaster risk reduction in their
strategies. ECHO has actively participated to the development of the EU Strategy supporting Disaster Risk
Reduction in developing countries, adopted in February 2009. This Strategy commits the EU to integrate DRR
considerations more effectively into EU development and humanitarian policies. An implementation plan is
currently under preparation to turn this strategy into action.
ECHO intends to continue its advocacy work towards development services of the European Commission (DG
RELEX and DG Development), the European Union Member States, national governments, international financial
institutions and other development partners. As show-cased in the website section with eye-witness accounts,
DIPECHO projects have made a real difference to vulnerable communities. The challenge ahead is to ensure that
disaster risk reduction becomes an integral part of sustainable development policy – in particular in countries at
high risk.
Contribution to international Disaster Risk Reduction efforts – the Hyogo Framework for
Action 2005-2015
ECHO strongly supports all international efforts, including those coordinated by the United Nations, to increase
disaster risk reduction worldwide.
ECHO therefore actively supported the World Conference for Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Japan in January
2005 following the Tsunami. This conference was one of the milestone events that led to the formulation of the
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 and the international commitment to strengthen the International System
for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) established within the auspices of UN OCHA. During the first session of the Global
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, held in 2007, ECHO shared its strategy and experience in a panel on
Strengthening Preparedness in Disaster Risk Reduction. Once again, ECHO is actively supporting the 2nd session
of the Global Platform (June 2009) during which the EU Strategy supporting Disaster Risk Reduction in
developing countries will be presented to government representatives, specialised UN agencies, lead donors, the
Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, scientific and regional experts, and civil society representatives.
From http://ec.europa.eu/echo/aid/dipecho_en.htm
32 ANNEX 3
RISKS CHILDREN FACE IN A DISASTER AND SOME CONSEQUENCES
Risks facing children
Loss of life, serious injuries,
illness
Consequences
Injured children have low chance of survival and growth,
especially when medical and other support services break
down after disaster
Death, injury or distress of
parents and carers
Destruction of children’s
home and neighbourhood Loss of materials for play,
interactions and early
learning
Overwhelming stress of
children and their carers
Destroyed or damaged
hospitals, community
healthcare centres,
kindergartens and preschools Loss of provision for children’s basic survival needs and care,
disruption of children’s face to face interaction with
caregivers, discontinued attendance of kindergartens and
preschools, increased children’s physical and mental health
problems Separation from family, low probability of survival, enforced
adoption, violence, abuse or (in some cultures) early marriage Cognitive and emotional development is hindered Children are at risk of developing a variety of cognitive,
behavioural and emotional difficulties. If exposed to toxic
stress (caused by extreme, prolonged adversity in the absence
of a supportive network of adults to help the child adapt)
children may not be able to cope. The lasting, neurobiological
effect on young children experiencing toxic stress leads to a
high likelihood of anti-social behaviour, lower achievement in
school and at work, and poor physical and mental health Children are deprived of basic health and education services
making it more difficult for them to build resilience and resume
normalcy
33 ENDNOTES
1
2
Save the Children UK (2007) The activities of the European Commission Humanitarian Aid department (DG ECHO) in the field of Disaster Preparedness
aims to increase resilience and to reduce vulnerability of local communities and institutions through support to strategies that
enable them to better prepare for, mitigate and respond to natural disasters. After several DIPECHO action plans in which the
community based approach in each country was successfully tested along with the reinforcement or the establishment of some
key institutions operating in disaster risk reduction, it was considered time to scale up and initiate operations that address
mainstreaming of DRR in government and development policies and regional networking of common interest institutions and
activities, to better take into account climate change adaptation in DRR interventions and to hand over operations initiated by
the DIPECHO programmes to local authorities and communities or to development cooperation actions. The European
Commission adopted the Humanitarian Aid Decision to provide a grant to further DRR work in Central Asia and South
Caucasus countries under DIPECHO VI. The specific objective of this DIPECHO Action Plan is "To increase resilience and
reduce vulnerability of local communities and institutions through support to strategies that enable them to better prepare for,
mitigate and respond to natural disasters".
3
UNICEF (2009d)
4
ISDR/ World Bank/ CAREC (2009) 5
The HFA was adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan in 2005 6
United Nations (2009)
7
The Global Network of Civil Society Organisation for Disaster Reduction is an example
8
CG ECCD, Engle et al. (2007) 9
Azerbaijan Demographic and Health Survey (2006)
10
UNICEF in Kazakhstan reports that in 2009 there was a boost in the number of pre-schools re-opening (each region reported
on opening 10-15 new kindergartens for children of pre-school age, aiming to cater to 74,000 children in 2010). The
Government's decision was to increase pre-school enrolment from 30% in 2009 to 40% in 2010. 11
UNICEF (2008b), data of Azerbaijan excepted
12
UNICEF (2008a)
13
DIPECHO South Caucasus revised proposal 1 March 2010, Section 3.1.
14
Op.cit.
15
In October 2008, UNICEF CEECIS received a grant for a sub-regional project “Supporting Disaster Risk Reduction amongst
Vulnerable Communities in Central Asia” from the DIPECHO V Action Plans. The grant was aimed at implementing disaster
risk reduction activities with a particular focus on the education sector in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. 16
Bracken and Petty (1998)
17
This period is referred to as the ‘early primary school’ by the CG ECCD. N.B: The age grouping mentioned in this paper is to
indicate approximate benchmarks and does not intend to provide a defining classification 18
Boyden and Mann (2005), quoted from Kamel (2006) 19
Vigotsky (1981) 20
For more information about these aspects see Printein & La Greca (1996), Swenson et al (1996), Deering (2000), Grotberg
(2001), Mercuri & Angelic (2004),Frost (2005), Jones (2008) 21
Dubrow, N.F., and Garbarino, J. (1989), quoted from Kamel (2006)
22
Shonkoff, J. (2009)
23
Grotberg, E. H. (2001) 24
UNICEF (2009d) 25
Children who try to resolve the problems they face, regulate their emotions, protect their self-esteem and manage their social
interactions are likely to be more resilient than children who passively accept their fate, especially in the long run (Cairns 1996,
Beristain, Valdoseda & Paez 1996, Gabarino 1999 – from Kamel 2006 26
Wisner (2006)
27
This is demonstrated in the recent experience with DRR for preschool children in Uzbekistan (ECHO/ ISDR/ UNICEF 2009) 28
ERM (2006) Natural Disasters and DRR measures- a desk review of costs and benefits, quoted from Back,E. Cameron,C. &
Tanner, T. (2009)
29
Krishna Kumar K.C and Daniel Kull (2009) 30
The High Scope longitudinal study (2005) finds that quality preschools bring benefits in improved school readiness and
completion, reduced use of health and social systems, increased earnings and reduced crime rates
http://www.highscope.org/Research/Perryproject 31
ISDR (2009)
32
ISDR (2009)
33
This is also in line with UNICEF’s goal to promote the “whole child” development and the protection of young children in
emergency and post-emergency situations 34
UNICEF (2009a) 34 35
36
This is an area where least progress has been made, according to the 2009 Global Assessment Report on DRR The age group classification of INEE is 0-2, 3-5 and 6-8
Based on ISDR definition of resilience
38
UNICEF (2009d)
39
ISDR (2009), Global Platform, 2009
40
The ECD Alliance in Georgia is an example 37
35